User talk:DavidWBrooks
| This is DavidWBrooks's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2003 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2004 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2005 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2006 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2007 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2008 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2009 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2010 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2011 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2012 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2013 archive
User talk: DavidWBrooks/2014 archive
User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2015 archive
User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2016 archive
User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2017 archive
User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2018 archive
User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2019 archive
User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2020 archive
User_talk:DavidWBrooks/2021 archive
User talk:DavidWBrooks/2022 archive
User talk:DavidWBrooks/2023 archive
Happy First Edit Day!
[edit] | Happy First Edit Day! Hi DavidWBrooks! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC) |  |
Thanks
[edit]
|
Around January 2023 I made a edit that was reverted and deservedly so, but it was really kind of you to specify that it wasn't something malicious but in good faith. Thanks for that Jackyfudge (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
The article Project Laundry List has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Defunct organization with no significant national coverage specifically about them; seems to fail WP:ORG
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Please have a look...
[edit]at the article, nut graph, which was revised today to add two sources, and make the new content fully hone to those sources. As a journalist who has looked in at that article in the past, your views/edits would be of value. In particular, I cannot speak to the value of the Poynter sources, and the relative value of the new Zamith book source (versus other more classic journalism texts); moreover, it's unclear whether the early placed "personal knowledge content" (most of the article before today) actually reflects what the two Poynter and the 1913 book source actually state. All I can attest to, is that the last edits reflect the content of the new Zamith and Gorman sources. Signed, a former academic editor (here and elsewhere). 98.193.42.97 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)